JITENDRA KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dtd. 1/6/2020 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2 - Director, Agriculture whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer.

(2.) Facts of the case, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as "Rural Agriculture Extension Officer" by the respondent Agriculture Department vide order dtd. 7/5/2008 on a probation period of two years and the petitioner has joined his service on 20/5/2008. After completion of probation period of 02 years, the respondents neither issued the order of confirmation of service of the petitioner nor issued order for extension of probation period. After serving more than 11 years of service with the respondent Agriculture Department, all of a sudden in the year 2019, a show cause notice dtd. 29/3/2019 was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that he suppressed his criminal record i.e. Ishtgasha No. 30/49/2001 registered against him under Ss. 151, 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. and another criminal case bearing Crime No. 155/2011 for the offence punishable under Ss. 341, 294, 506-B, 323, 147, 148 and 325 of the IPC, in which, he has also been charge-sheeted. The petitioner filed reply to the said show-cause notice vide Annexure P-6, but without considering his reply and without conducting any departmental enquiry against the petitioner, he has been removed from service vide impugned order. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, instant writ petition has been preferred challenging the same.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though formal order of confirmation of employment of the petitioner was not passed by the respondents-Department, but he served for more than 11 years with the Respondent-Agriculture Department, therefore, his service was deemed to be confirmed, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get his service protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and without conducting formal enquiry, punishment of major penalty cannot be imposed against the petitioner by removing him from service. He further submits that on 20/5/2008, when the petitioner joined the service of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, no such declaration / attestation form was sought to be filled by him. First time, in the month of October, 2011 i.e. after completion of probation period, he was served such declaration form (Annexure R-1) to be filled by him. He further submits that while supplying the declaration form (Annexure R-1), he was asked by respondent authorities that he has to state about his criminal antecedents as on the date of joining of service, therefore, he had not disclosed about criminal case bearing Crime No.155 / 2011 registered on 21/6/2011 at Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur and Ishtgasha No. 30/49/2001 pertaining to Ss. 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C., which belongs to preventive action and does not fall in the category of crime, as such, it would not amount to an offence involving moral turpitude. He further submits that criminal case bearing Crime No. 155 / 2011 was registered against the petitioner on 21/6/2011 i.e after much later of his joining on the said post, therefore, not disclosing about the aforesaid criminal case cannot be a ground of his removal from services, that too, without conducting any departmental enquiry. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and another,(2023) 12 SCC 317. {paragraph 17}, which has further been reiterated & followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,(2024) 5 SCC 264. He further submits that aforesaid criminal case has been disposed of by the trial Court vide order 7/9/2014. He further submits that since the order impugned has been passed in utter violation of provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth, "Rules, 1966"), therefore, the same may be set aside.